If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

User Info Menu

Join Date

Feb 2012

Posts

4,500

Originally Posted by Shoe

That would be the issue. If we couldn't, we cut him and bite the bullet with Worilds.

that's my point. why not give worilds woodley reduced salary and know that you are gonna get a guy that at least tries and puts up better numbers. and younger. and it sends a message.
biting the bullet would be keeping the fatass lazy POS woodley and his huge salary

User Info Menu

Join Date

May 2008

Posts

3,953

Originally Posted by squidkid

that's my point. why not give worilds woodley reduced salary and know that you are gonna get a guy that at least tries and puts up better numbers. and younger. and it sends a message.
biting the bullet would be keeping the fatass lazy POS woodley and his huge salary

I'm hesitant because of Worilds' own injury history. If we ink him and say he continues to get hurt like he has the first three seasons, we are now paying (a premium) for a guy like Woodley who is injured all the time, along with the dead money from then cutting Woodley. Keep in mind: I'm not advocating keeping Woodley at his full, current price. He has to take a cut, to remain. But I think keeping him (at a reduced price), and drafting his soon replacement, is the cheapest and best choice. Because let's be honest: fatso still can play... just not for 16 games.

User Info Menu

Join Date

May 2008

Posts

3,488

I get the concern over Worilds' injuries. I don't think his injuries have the same history of recurrence compared to Woodley's, and i have the thought that he may not be as comparatively injury-prone as Woodley has been. If Woodley could stay in top linebacker shape and stay on the field, then he could be the beast. Past is not predicting that future for Woodley, in my view.

User Info Menu

Join Date

Aug 2008

Location

N.Y.

Posts

4,332

Originally Posted by Shoe

I'm hesitant because of Worilds' own injury history. If we ink him and say he continues to get hurt like he has the first three seasons, we are now paying (a premium) for a guy like Woodley who is injured all the time, along with the dead money from then cutting Woodley. Keep in mind: I'm not advocating keeping Woodley at his full, current price. He has to take a cut, to remain. But I think keeping him (at a reduced price), and drafting his soon replacement, is the cheapest and best choice. Because let's be honest: fatso still can play... just not for 16 games.

User Info Menu

Not sure how dumb of a question this is, but could Woodley play DE opposite Heyward?

Clearly he would have to add 20 pounds. But if we get to the draft and, say, Barr or Mack were sitting there at 15, could we pull the trigger on one of those guys.

I feel like having Woodley opposite Heyward with Mclendon at NT could be an interesting dynamic combined with Jarvis and Barr/Mack at the OLB spots(because Worilds would probably be gone). Maybe get Keisel back at a vet min. to be a back up. Or let Keisel go to free up some cap space.

User Info Menu

Join Date

Feb 2012

Posts

4,500

Originally Posted by Shoe

I'm hesitant because of Worilds' own injury history. If we ink him and say he continues to get hurt like he has the first three seasons, we are now paying (a premium) for a guy like Woodley who is injured all the time, along with the dead money from then cutting Woodley. Keep in mind: I'm not advocating keeping Woodley at his full, current price. He has to take a cut, to remain. But I think keeping him (at a reduced price), and drafting his soon replacement, is the cheapest and best choice. Because let's be honest: fatso still can play... just not for 16 games.

Worilds is not a slam-dunk, guaranteed star going forward.

i cant figure out why you want to pay a guy that you know will get hurt and miss part of the season.
im not sure i said anything close to worilds being a slam dunk star.
woodley playing 1/2 to 2/3 of a season, a bad jarvis jones and a rookie that wont be any good or see the field for a couple years will without a doubt be the cheaper way to go but it sure wont be the best.

User Info Menu

Join Date

Aug 2013

Posts

2,824

Originally Posted by squidkid

i cant figure out why you want to pay a guy that you know will get hurt and miss part of the season.im not sure i said anything close to worilds being a slam dunk star.
woodley playing 1/2 to 2/3 of a season, a bad jarvis jones and a rookie that wont be any good or see the field for a couple years will without a doubt be the cheaper way to go but it sure wont be the best.

User Info Menu

Join Date

May 2008

Posts

22,231

Its football.... reat players on D always have a higher chance of getting injured because they are always in the mix. We dont pay Woodley and Troy for their injuries, we paid them for their talents when healthy. It would be great if we could see the future and pay based on our crystal ball.